add_device

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: MIDI track/rack-chain preconditions, that Max for Live devices load through the browser, and that an empty drum pad triggers a new chain. It doesn't disclose failure behavior or the resulting device state/selection, keeping it at 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then packs parameter semantics into terse fragments and closes with a concrete example. It is dense but nearly every clause carries non-obvious information; a slightly tighter grouping of the chain examples could improve it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description covers insertion scope, preconditions, chain grammar, device sourcing, and an example. Missing only return/error behavior and post-insert side effects (selection, undo interaction), which the sibling set (undo/redo) hints at but the description never addresses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: name casing rules with examples, position=-1 meaning end, and a detailed chain path grammar with three illustrative formats. Only 'track' is left implicit (inferable from "on a track"), which is a minor gap against a 0%-covered 4-param schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Insert a native Live device") and scopes it to a track or rack chain, immediately distinguishing it from browser-based loading by naming 'live_from_browser's role. The sibling list contains many device tools (set_device, device_action, duplicate_device), and the word 'native' plus the insert-only framing separates this one cleanly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing guidance is given for a key case: "Presets and packs: load_from_browser." Preconditions are also stated ("Instruments and MIDI effects need a MIDI track or MIDI rack chain"). It doesn't systematically state when NOT to use it versus siblings like duplicate_device/move_device, so it stops short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.